With or Without?

  • Catherine HobbsEmail author


Time to reflect Hobbs reflects about what could happen if people adopted some of these ideas, compared with business as usual, imagining the position from a 2050 viewpoint. This chapter provides an opportunity to sum up the more abstract characteristics of the proposed approach and contrast this with a ‘status quo’ scenario. This technique allows a handle to be put on what constantly seems to be an insurmountable challenge of transdisciplinarity in addressing complexity, with a default positioning in the ‘without’ scenario. Hobbs concludes that the role of social science is fundamental to the success of this endeavour, with its capability of facilitating expansion into ‘the adjacent possible’ in many small ways. Finally, the characteristics of the persisting deterministic framework are contrasted with an adjacent possible emergent framework.


Transdisciplinarity Social science Emergent 


  1. Dunn, E. S. (1971). Economic and Social Development: A Process of Social Learning. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  2. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (Eds.). (1991). Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Hobbs, C. (2008). System Recovery: A Proposed Retreat to Messier Places to Consider an Emergent Model of Public Policy-Making. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Hobbs, C. (2016). Tapping the Resource Within? Exploring a Learning Pathway for Systemic Leadership Within Local Governance Networks. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ph.D. Systems Science, University of Hull, Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Jackson, M. C. (1991a). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. In Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences (pp. 271–276). Boston, MA: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, M. C. (1991b). The Origins and Nature of Critical Systems Thinking. Systems Practice, 4(2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Klag, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the Conceptual Leap in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knight, A. D., Lowe, T., Brossard, M., & Wilson, J. (2017). A Whole New World: Funding and Commissioning in Complexity. London: Collaborate.Google Scholar
  12. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorising from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. McMichael, A. J. (1999). Prisoners of the Proximate: Loosening the Constraints on Epidemiology in an Age of Change. American Journal of Epidemiology, 149(10), 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meadows, D. (1972). Club of Rome. The Limits to Growth; a Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe.Google Scholar
  16. National Audit Office. (2018). Reducing Emergency Admissions. London: NAO.Google Scholar
  17. Pearce, N., & Merletti, F. (2006). Complexity, Simplicity, and Epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(3), 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.Google Scholar
  19. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing: Second Edition. Reading, MA and Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Systems StudiesHull University Business SchoolCumbriaUK

Personalised recommendations